G2G: British North America? Really?

Question

When naming places wikitree guidelines say to use their conventions instead of ours. Would someone please show me one 1600-1700's-ish contemporary document that refers to what is currently the United States as "British North America"

Comments

I'll comment that in New England, wills frequently say: Town, County, Colony name, New England. I have occasionally (pretty rare) seen documents that will say New England in the Continent of America or just America

---

The colonial New England wills I've seen typically name the town, the county, the colony, and New England. They often also indicate the name of the king (of England) and the year of his reign, but I don't think I've seen any that mention America or that say anything like "British America."

---

From the Connecticut Charter, the king himself says: "in that Part of the Continent of America called New-England. Which is where I got that rare reference to America, but you're right about wills. I love it when they give the 10th year of King Whoever's reign. This one is from original England. "in the year of our lorde god (one) thousand five hundred fiftie and eight(?) and  in the first year of the reigne of our sovereigne lady queen Elizabete..." At least they listed both.

---

Thank You! Yes very well put. British North America would be Canada.It is a very very nice country.   Let us not forget history 1776 and all that.

Yes, Thank You

---

Make that two of us.   Just the other day, there was a New England.

---

Go get 'em Anna!

I'm biased because my ancestors are only from the N. E. but many of the documents of the period I review do say New England. But I don't look at documents from the other colonies outside of this area.

---

Another thought about those colonial New England wills... Early on, monetary legacies were described in pounds, shillings, and pence. Later (I've not tried to figure out when this started, but I estimate it was not long after 1700) they referred to "lawful money of New England." It seems like New England had become the largest geopolitical entity that people identified with.

---

WikiTree should establish guidelines for users to follow concerning this issue, also concerning Upper and Lower Canada. 

---

Quentin, we do have a guideline: use their convention, not ours. This means use the name as it was used during the person's lifetime.

---

The other day, I found a Canada W   

Now, what would that be in the 1700s?

Also, there is a Canada, English.  I guess is instead of French.  It's all confusing and uniformity is difficult.  Those folks didn't exactly care about convention.  Didn't know about other names and usages.

---

I have ancestry on both sides of the national border established in the mid-19th century, so I have often wondered about subsequent emphasis on that border for events transpiring prior to definition of the border.  What later became the state of Maine and the Bay of Fundy shore of the Province of New Brunswick remained largely under control of the First Nations as Europeans colonized Massachusetts and Acadia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MaineBoundaryDispute.jpg shows the overlapping boundary claims persisting until 1842. Few of us have been able to trace ancestors living along the Saint John River or in coastal fishing outports prior to that time.  Many early Europeans seem to have chosen this sparsely settled ambiguous location to avoid taxation and retain the flexibility to shift alliances through periods of French/English warfare.  Even those who were literate were reluctant to document where they found the fish, furs and timber which supported their lifestyle. Similar naming convention ambiguity might arise concerning conflicting interior boundaries of territories prior to statehood.

---

We need to remember that MANY of the profiles here on wikitree came from uploaded GEDCOMs, generated by genealogy software programs that used whatever convention they used. So we've "inherited" gosh-knows-what-all in terms of what goes into a place name field.

Just saying that I am never really surprised by what I see in those fields.

---

Also sometimes that genealogy software autocompleted  people's entries, converting a short, vague place identification into a detailed -- but noncredible -- geographic name. Like turning NL for Netherlands into "Newfoundland and Labrador" and making "Holland" into an obscure street in a Netherlands village.

My recent favorite is Picardy, Middleburg Zeeland, Indiana, USA,  where a man with a French name supposedly was born in 1640. That must have an interesting history!

---

In a similar vein, many profiles at Ancestry have the death place listed as Y, Somme, Picardy, France.  The letter "Y" is actually a yes or no answer to the question asking if the person is deceased, and becomes misplaced as the place of death by the automatic completion feature in their software.

---

FYI, British Colonial America is a common term; when merging databases, I use it as a basic criteria as to which record survives the merger.

Canada didn't become a cohesive country independently until relatively recently, so in records in the 1800s and earlier, you'll find Canada split into multiple parts. Canada West or CW or Canada W refers to what is modern day Ontario or at least the easterly portions of it. Prior to that it was French Colonial America or New France.

I have found it very useful when doing pre-1900 profiles in what is the modern day USA to keep a Wikipedia tab open for comparing areas on genealogical records to what they'd have to be historically. Basically anything prior to the 1780s needs to be altered so as not to give modern day US locations.

And this all goes back to my contention that the international standard would likely to convert place names where possible into GPS coordinates as those would be more neutral and more immediately usable by machines for processing documents in bulk.

Answer 1

Was not used until 1783, became common in the 19th century, especially with the Durham Report. With respect to the Thirteen Colonies they should probably be named individually followed by British Empire (i.e. "Province of Massachusetts Bay, British Empire").

Comments

I didn't realize it was that old a term. I thought it was a more modern invention. Thanks Helmut. Of course by 1783, we can legitimately call the places in the United States, the "United States"

---

Umm, Anne, it looks like you're taking a page from that famous "New Yorker" magazine cover - the map of the world that shows intricate detail of all Manhattan landmarks, and has California just across the George Washington bridge and China and Russia just beyond that on one side. On the other side, there is the Atlantic Ocean with Europe just beyond it.

Only a few places that are now part of the United States were part of it in 1783, although only a dyed-in-the-wool New Englander could manage to not notice that!!!

---

You are right, of course, Gaile. My focus was a little narrow. Heck I remember when Alaska and Hawaii became states, and I sure wasn't around in 1783

---

I also remember when the 49th and 50th stars were added to the flag and  I *CERTAINLY* wasn't around in 1783!  I am only 21 now (and was last year and will be next year).

---

The original 13 states covered a lot more territory in 1783 than they do now, largely because most of them extended a whole lot farther west at the time the United States was established. For example, much of Ohio was part of Connecticut, Kentucky was part of Virginia, and Tennessee was part of North Carolina. And of course West Virginia was part of Virginia.

---

The Charter of 1662 gave Connecticut Colony "ownership" rights all the way to the west coast, even though no one knew what was in the middle. More.

---

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territory) has this to say about the Northwest Territory at the end of the American Revolution:

"Several states (Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut) then had competing claims on the territory. Other states, such as Maryland, refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation so long as these states were allowed to keep their western territory, fearing that those states could continue to grow and tip the balance of power in their favor under the proposed system of federal government. As a concession in order to obtain ratification, these states ceded their claims on the territory to the federal government: New York in 1780, Virginia in 1784, Massachusetts and Connecticut in 1785. So the majority of the territory became public land owned by the U.S. government. Virginia and Connecticut reserved the land of two areas to use as compensation to military veterans: The Virginia Military District and the Connecticut Western Reserve. In this way, the United States included territory and people outside any of the states."

---

Another moniker! We need to settle on a common nomenclature.

Would the southern British colonies within the later USA be considered "New England?"

I've seen Upper and Lower Canada used by other than genealogy entities, the designations maybe having been used officially by the Canadian gov't at one time.

RootsMagic has its own set of designations that appear when I enter profiles in that program. "British America" being one. I've seen other area designations used also.

---

Britain didn't exist prior to 1707. What would you call it prior to the Acts of Union between England & Scotland? "English America"? <<cringe>>

---

It's a question of fuzzy concepts. Even Wikipedia uses imprecise language referring to British colonies in the 17th century. Technically it would be English Empire until 1707. And while some people argue that "everybody knows" what Plymouth Colony means, my argument would be that we are trying to put something together that we hope will endure because of its quality. So what about that Mongolian genealogist 100 years from know looking at the "world tree" and asking "Plymouth Colony? Colony of what?" He or she is most likely going to be more familiar with Chinese history than American.

---

Helmut,

Your discussion is why I suggest using "Colonial America" or "Colonial North America." These give a geographic location which would be clear to anyone, with or without any knowledge of North American history, I would think.

---

I was going to propose that we call it North America. I've been looking at old maps. Maps refer to it as North America even pre-settlement. Of course they tend to label them in Latin, but I think we can ignore America Septentrionalis, in favor of North America, since I doubt very much if too many of my ancestors (except the clergy) read latin.

The problem with North America, and Colonial America is that it is not what my 1600's ancestor would have called it. It's not what is written in their legal documents, which would be town, county, colony, New England. Even today, we don't address our letters with the continent.

I fear this is one of those things. We are simply not going to get a good answer, that fits everyone. I'm quite certain that I had this same conversation about two years ago when I first joined.

---

For ancestors living in colonial America between 1 May 1707 and 1776, I believe United Kingdom of Great Britain was the official state name.  

So, as an example my ancestor born in 1761 would have the location of his birth as Germantown Township, Philadelphia County, Province of Pennsylvania, United Kingdom of Great Britain.  

Prior to 1707, I've seen Kingdom of Britain used in oaths of allegiance.

Answer 2

Why would any contemporary documents say "British North America"? They wouldn't for precisely the same reason that current vital records don't say, "United States of America." It would be understood, hence elided. So, searching for a mention in a contemporary document is not the appropriate test for whether the term is correct.

Answer 3

Just to add fuel to the fire (my specialty :)

On the profile for [[Fairbanks-133|Jonathan Fairbanks]] of Dedham, (then the Mass. Bay Colony), I've noted the address that was on a document "mailed" to him from England:

The copy of the 1650 will was addressed as follows:

"George Fairbanke his

last Will &

Testamt.

For his lovinge Cusen Jonathan

Fayrebancke in new Ingland

these

Deliur."

So if one was sending something from England to New England in 1650, one addressed it as only "New England" and made no mention of "British North America". Besides, "Britain" was not formed until 1707 with the Acts of Union between England & Scotland. As for filling in our forms on WikiTree, I would suggest (in the above example) using only the Colony name, and if you really want to expand it, then add New England. Before 1707, any reference to "Britain" would be incorrect.

Comments

That's an excellent example Bobbie

Answer 4

I submit this as a possibility for use prior to the US Revolution, usable for territories in both (what is now) Canada and the USA:

Colonial America 

or 

Colonial North America

 

Between 1606 & 1670, you'd have to refer to them as the English Colonies, not the British Colonies... 

Comments

plus you have to watch out because France and Spain also had colonies on the North American continent...  and in the islands

---

True Keith, and Dutch - New Netherlands in a specific time frame.

---

I have another reason not to use "Colonies," having removed that word from one marriage location that read "Watertown, Middlesex, Massachusetts, Colonies" after I discovered that the WikiTree geolocation feature localized the marriage to a car dealership named Colonial Buick.

Answer 5

"New England" is a reference to a specific political entity, the "New England Confederation".  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Confederation

I think that "British Empire" should never be used for American colonies that later became the USA, because the phrase was never used by the colonists to describe where they lived.   They considered their colonies to be autonomous political entities "outside the realm" of England, with their own laws. 

In the American colonial profiles that I manage, I simply use the name of the individual colony, without reference to any larger geographical area.

 

Comments

Can I upvote your answer several more times? It would make it so much easier, but people keep insisting on adding some larger entity

---

Up-voted! :D

---

New England a reference to a specific political entity? Don't think so. It was a term generally used for the English colonies in what is now New England. The New England Confederation and the Dominion of New England were just transient political entities that happened to incorporate the generally used term for the area.

I agree with your position on British Empire, however.

---

Um, it is hard to consider a confederation that lasted for 30 years as "transient."  My point was that "New England" has a historical basis in actual usage (whereas "British Empire" or "British North America" doesn't).  For the 17th-century New England profiles that I manage, I don't use "New England" as a geographic area.  I just name the town, county (if applicable -- early Plymouth didn't have counties), and colony.

---

I'm in total agreement with your way of doing it, John. I try to verify that a particular town/county/colony combination existed for each date & place I use. Not easy, but at least it's accurate.

Is it confusing to those who aren't familiar with the area & history to see "Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts Bay Colony" when it's an event that occurred in 1660? I doubt it. And more importantly, I think: it's accurate.

---

I didn't start out using New England, I was doing what John does, but then I kept getting people adding USA, British North America, etc. So in defense, or to prevent the addition of something else, I started putting in New England, because that at least is something they did use.

---

If it's a profile that I manage, I'm afraid I'm more aggressive and less passive - I correct it again, and add a comment that Maine/USA, etc., didn't exist in that time frame. I'm probably making enemies meanwhile, but I try to do it nicely.

Answer 6

Anybody look this up on WikiPedia? Seems like a legitimate reference to me:

British North America referred to the territories of the British Empire in mainland North America. The term was first used informally in 1783, but it was uncommon before the Report on the Affairs of British North America (1839), called the Durham Report. These territories today form modern-day Canada and the northwest of the United States.

Comments

Legitimate reference to Canada and the northwest US after 1783, but not for US colonies pre-1776, which is how it was generally being used.

Answer 7

"New England" was used from the 1600s on so it is a valid "larger entity" for any English colony up to and including those now in Canada for that period.  The "southern colonies" are more difficult as each was an independent entity under either an aristocratic "proprietor" or, as eventually happened to all of them, directly ruled under the King of England.  To make it more complicated, all the American "colonies" became English Provinces around 1700 = in 1691 for Massachusetts Bay (included Maine) - so in the 1700s, the 13 "colonies" were, in fact, English provinces in North America as were the Maritime provinces that are now in Canada (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick etc.).  Canada was not created until 1867 and Newfoundland did not join it until 1949...

Because I believe strongly in adding a geographical component to profiles whenever possible (to help that future Mongolian from 2100 if he/she can still access WikiTree!), I have taken to using Parentheses for locations that later became part of a new nation.  So, pre-1867, any of the profiles I create for ancestors who were born or died in Nova Scotia say become:  "...Annapolis County, Nova Scotia (Canada)".  After 1867 they become: "...Annapolis County, Nova Scotia, Canada".  For non-New England areas, I use: either "English province of Virginia" or "Virginia colony (North America)" or "English commonwealth of Pennsylvania (North America)" .  One could also put the (USA) in parentheses for anything before 1776 (or 1783 if you prefer Constitution over Declaration).  Hence: "Virginia colony [or province] (USA)".

This concept can be extended to other parts of the world that coalesced into Nation-states in the 19-20th Centuries;  e.g..: "Munich, Bavaria (Germany)" for pre-1871 Munich and "Munich, Bavaria, Germany" thereafter.  I know that some places went back and forth between nations and that may cause problems - what to do about historic German city names in newer Slavic Nations like in Poland, Czech Republic or Ukraine ??  Again perhaps using the Parentheses can help with the language changes ? i.e.,   "Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary), Bohemia (Czech Rep.)" or "Breslau (Wrocław), Silesia (Poland)"...??  for pre-1918 birth/deaths on profiles...

Above all else, we want to COMMUNICATE and SITUATE historical people so modern-day descendants and other readers can understand them better - to me that seems the "bottom line" and whatever way we find to do that, even if we have "unity in diversity" is what counts.

Answer 8

Having just seen "British North America" added to a profile I manage, I think we need to go back to the fundamental question, "What is the problem we are trying to solve?"  As others have commented in this string, while the northern colonies were at times part of a political entity called "New England" or variations on the name, the southern colonies including Maryland and Virginia were entities independent of each other and tied only to the mother country.  

So I'm wondering why it is a problem to leave it as Virginia or Maryland or Province of Maryland?  Is it because these entities are currently part of a larger entity, therefore we think they must ALWAYS have been part of a larger entity?  

If it's important to elaborate on location, that can be done in precise detail in the narrative, i.e. "George Smith was born in Maryland which at the time was a Proprietary Colony of England under the rule of the Lords Baltimore."

Comments

The location field almost can be used consistently to demarcate a machine readable location that can be dereferenced to a definitive GPS plot and shown on a map to a human reader.

If a colony is denoted with only say three comma separated values then it can be and often is ambiguous as to when and where a location is being referred to. For instance, if I told you my family is buried in Berlin then I would not be giving you enough context in general for you to distinguish between a number of possible cities or places called Berlin; in this case, I would be meaning Berlin, New Jersey, Contemporary US rather than Berlin, Berlin, Contemporary Germany.

Also, contemporary city names and locations would not make it immediately obvious as to whether or not a given person was born in or died in say the Plymouth Bay Colony as opposed to the same relative location but after the formation of the US. If it is explicitly written in terms of the time when the ancestor arrived or died then it is immediately obvious when an ancestor couldn't be a member of the maiden voyage of the Mayflower. This is one example among many that is relevant for the possible global genealogy projects.

---

Attempting to use the location field identifying the place of birth, death and marriage for electronic geospatial identification feels to me like trying to use something intended for one purpose for another, and both will suffer.  

If we want to pin-point Aachen or Aix-la-Chapelle on today's map, then we really need a separate data field into which "current location" could be entered.  That would be very clean and we could use modern post codes or other identifiers.  But for genealogy and historical purposes, if the person was born in that location when it was German-controlled, the place would be listed as Aachen.  It the person then died when it was French-controlled, it would be listed as Aix-la-Chapelle.  Place names change over time.  There is a small town in Maryland now known as Etchison, which, I understand, was once known as "Pig's Misery."  There is a place now called "Whiskey Bottom" which the parents at the elementary school are trying energetically to change to something they deem nicer.  I understand the WikiTree policy, which I strongly support, is to use the place names as they were AT THE TIME.  That means that to be a genealogist, you also have to be an  historian.  

Is there actually a database out there that knows that Aix-la Chapelle and Aachen are the same place?  That Pig's Misery and Etchison are the same place?  If so, then perhaps we could use the WikiTree location fields for both historical place names and also for modern geospatial location identification.  But if now, trying to use the same field would make both objectives suffer.  It would be simpler to have two fields, and let the humans enter both the historic place name and the modern one.

Answer 9

When King James VI unified the crowns of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland through inheritance in 1603, he liked to refer to these sovereign states who shared him as monarch as "Great Britain". Wishful thinking at that point. If I'm not mistaken, after the Acts of Union passed by the English and Scottish Parliaments, the Treaty of Union formed England and Scotland into one kingdom, and the term "Great Britain" was legal. Prior to that, still controversial, event, the term "British" had no actual political/legal meaning. This made the term "British America" rare, perhaps with the exception of Canada.

Answer 10

Bryan McCullagh , I have been using a printed list from: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_admission_to_the_Union . It seems to work well for me. JPV IV :)

Answer 11

I've seen several examples.  For example, the periodical The Scots Magazine (1760's) had a regular column called "British North America" that dealt with news topics in the present day Canada and United States.  If you search Google Books you will find these references and others. 

In any case, I believe Wikipedia is incorrect in giving first use as 1783, since I was easily able to find "British North America" used back to 1761.

Comments

Well, I'll be! Not to be nit-picky (well maybe a little) but I didn't find it from 61-64. Didn't see it until 1765. So the Scots Magazine did it before 1783. However that still doesn't help, because John Jones living in Maryland would not have used the term.

Interesting magazine by the way.

---

Well, not to be too, too nit-pickey, but did you see the London Chronicle, Saturday, 17 January, 1761?  It is another good example of an earlier reference to "British North America."

Variations on this, such as the Boston Evening-Post (1748) referring to "British Settlements in North America."

Of course there may be good reasons to adopt a different designation for referring to this jurisdiction within Wikitree projects, but I'd rather not spread the notion that the term was not used for that purpose, at least by some, pre-1783.

---

British Settlements in North America certainly describes them. Have you got a link to the London Chronicle?

Answer 12

I found entirely new sets of records using the proper term, British Colonial America at Family Search, vast archives of over 2,000 sets of records I have never seen before! I've dug around for years and was unable to find the early records.  Thank you so much for showing me the proper term!
 

British Colonial America — Explore Images Results — FamilySearch.org
 

IMHO, it is best use what the professional archivists use at Family Search.